Schneider Kreuznach has said it will begin making lenses for mirrorless systems, and has shown renderings of a 14mm F2.0 lens for the Micro Four Thirds system. The move will make Schneider one of the few independent lens makers building autofocus lenses for mirrorless systems, following the launches of lenses for Micro Four Thirds and Sony NEX from Sigma and a NEX 18-200mm from Tamron. As part of its annual review, Schneider says it will introduce a range of lenses for mirrorless cameras 'this fall,' which we're expecting to mean around the Photokina show in Cologne, this September. (viaPhotoscala)

Press Release:

SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH enters market for system camera lenses

With sales at prior-year levels, Schneider Kreuznach records increase in profit. Industrial business shows high potential. New product range for system cameras in pipeline. Positive outlook for current year.

BAD KREUZNACH, June 14, 2012.

Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH based in Bad Kreuznach, Germany, and its subsidiaries have recorded an increase in operating results by around 14 %. Total sales of 85.5 million euros in 2011 were roughly at prior-year level. Continual growth at the company's Bad Kreuznach headquarters contributed 51.7 million euros to Group sales, up 6 percent versus the prior-year period. "We have been making major investments at the Bad Kreuznach location and are pleased to see that the headquarters has recorded further growth," said Schneider Group's managing director Dr. Josef Staub.

Particularly the growing demand in the Automotive sector for highprecision test and measurement technology plus the overall Inspection market, for instance in the field of LCD and solar production, account for significant increases in the Industrial segment which the company expects to show continuing growth potential. The simple compact cameras business on the other hand is declining. "This does not come as a surprise. We are placing a strong focus on the innovative market for mirrorless system cameras with their interchangeable lenses and have appropriate developments in the pipeline," Dr. Staub added. Schneider- Kreuznach will launch the first lens of an all-new range of mirrorless system cameras this fall. To develop and produce these high-end lenses the company is planning additional capital expenditures at the Bad Kreuznach location. In the wide range of the Consumer market, the group has already been active with B+W filters. In addition, the portfolio was enhanced by lens attachments for Apple's iPhone last year.

Comments

As a E-M5 user, I am very interested in these lenses. Probably I am just one of very few people who are actually NOT happy with the optical, but much more the MECHANICAL quality (or lack thereof) that all current MFT lenses have. Yes I am not happy with the 12/2, the 45/1.8 (this one has good optics, but very weak mechanics) and I returned the brand new 25/1.4 as well because it simply was not good enough for my taste.

The E-M5 needs REALLY good lenses, if you have these you can get gorgeous 24x36 prints out of it, even bigger, and IMO it also would profit very much from lenses that won't lose their quality after the first slight knock. I hope that Schneider-Kreuznach will deliver maximum quality and find enough customers to introduce all the three planned lenses to the market.

If I could change anything, I'd prefer the 14/2 to be a 17/2 or 17/1.4, though. But my main concern is the optical and mechanical quality.

Hi Thomas. I am considering the OM-D EM-5 system as my "travel" system, already having a Pentax K-5, with superbly sharp and well-made optics. I've made superb 24x36 prints from the Pentax, and am very interested in how you say about the OM-D "if you have these you can get gorgeous 24x36 prints out of it". So, you think that size enlargement can hold its own against a simialr size APS-C sensor print?

Why anybody would make a lens for 4/3 or NEX is beyond me....4/3 was a mistake and NEX is pointless ... if you want a APS-C sensor you use a DSLR proper.The point of mirrorless is to reduce the size and weight of equipment.

Quote : "Why anybody would make a lens for 4/3 or NEX is beyond me"I am sorry to hear that. I believe one answer is 'to make a profit' . The µ4/3 is the number one camera system in japan right now. Also with the extensive use of Panasonic's GH1, GH2 and AG-AF100 a "professional" digital video camera, amongst amateur and indi film makers, having an AF pro style lens choice from Schneider is a great sales opportunity.

Quote: "The point of mirrorless is to reduce the size and weight of equipment."Yes it sure is, and the µ4/3 system does that very well.Much better than the Larger APS-C cameras (NEX), since their lenses do not seem to shrink much, if any, from their DSLR versions.

What makes me somewhat upset is that way to start making mirrorless lenses with that useless 4/3 format when realizing lenses. I would have taken an OMD right away if it had been made with an apsc sensor. Oly and Pan users have a huge park of good lenses they can use while NEX users are just waiting for a better offer on low diameter lenses. Sony's 16 is not what we look for and Sigma found it useful to make a 19mm instead of a 12 or 14mm we wait all for.If Schneider just takes the Samsung NX lenses and adapt them to Sony E-mount, they can earn a huge amount of money.

I know it is, M DeNero. I was being ironic. I only posted this comment due to the number of misinformed comments the articles about the new Olympus 75mm/f1.8 have received from people who believe there is an «equivalent aperture», analogous to equivalent focal length (actually some extend this equivalence to ISO!!!) Guess this «equivalence» only applies to Olympus lenses...!

Wait a second! This is only for m43? Schneider Kreuznach works with Samsung, Samsung makes the APS-C size NX series compact system cameras, and Schneider Kreuznach is making these lenses for "compact system cameras". But it does not mention APS-C size compatibility????

yes µ4/3 is a bigger system but these lenses are not marketed for still photography users . It is meant for the videographers market, and they use GH1 and GH2's as well as the Panasonic AF-100 cameras. Movie makers are the ones purchasing high prices lenses in the thousands range , and always have been. Even Zeiss has been offering High quality cinema lenses in µ4/3 mount for a while now.

Update (6/15/2012): from Photoscala web site."Bad Kreuznach is emphasized yesterday that the MFT lenses are manufactured in Germany by the Schneider group."

"Meanwhile, more information about MFT lens series have become known: The Super-Angulon 2,0 / 14 mm consists of 10 elements, has 4 aspheric surfaces and will offer 60 lp / mm over the entire image field. It is further considered in Bad Kreuznach on the development of a 1,4 / 30 mm and a 2,4 / 60mm macro / portrait lens MFT. More detailed information can be expected for the upcoming Photokina."

"In Super-Angulon 2,0 / 14, it will be a fully-compatible Micro Four Thirds lens, autofocus and aperture control of the camera would be so available. It is to be presented at photokina 2012, the public and in the first quarter of 2013 will be on the market. The aim is a price less than 1500 €."

"Schneider wants to photokina show his roadmap for future Micro Four Thirds SLR and lenses. The manufacturer had to photokina 2010 two tilt-shift lenses for Canon EF, Nikon F, Sony A and Pentax K introduced additional miniature camera lenses - with and without tilt and shift function, but without focus and without electric diaphragm control - should now follow."

This lens on something like the Samsung NX-20 = Architecture and Landscape dream combo. Small enough carry around and avoid looking like a press photog and big enough sensor to get some low light quality. Auto Focus? Would be nice if you wantted to shoot video with it as well.

Schneider Kreuznach is a state of art lens manufacturer, and has been on the edge for generations. Superior big format, medium format and 35 mm lens production in the film era - along with premium enlarging lenses and optics in many other aspects. Now heading for modern digital cameras. Great news for M43 owners.

It's hardly "on the edge" in modern world. They make few extremely rare lenses for SLRs and don't exist in photography world to any degree. Hope it will change, but for now they are almost forgotten company beyond the market.

I compared the EM-5 output to my RB76 slides/negs of old. Micro 4/3 leaves it in the dust for all BUT stupidly and unsalable wafer thin DOF. Also film latitude in negs still wins.

Usually you had to stop down RB67 to F8 to get acceptable DOF - more for landscapes (portraits were OK at F4.5).

RB-67 lenses closed down to f/45 when needed, (occasionally).This is why large format cameras can be had for a dime on eBay - no need for dinosaurs any more and 35mm is next. History has proven it, and the oldies whined when roll film went out of fashion as "full" frame adherents do right now.

That 75/1.8 looks brilliant and is available now in OZ. Want to sell some lenses first, though.

u4/3 helps to reduce clutter very well without real (as opposed to imagined) loss in quality.

Every few decades the film (sensor) has halved (with a 1960's blip, rejecting"movie frame' cameras like the old pen range because still film wasn't good enough. Ancient history!

While I agree m43s can provide an excellent alternative for most people there are plenty of people still around who prefer to use something bigger and an OVF just cannot be replaced overnight with an EVF.

Not forgetting to add FF IQ is still noticeably better than what m43s can produce.

In spite of formats like 126, 110 and even the Kodak disc, the 35mm format won out. In spite of the challenge by micro 4/3, APS-C and full frame 35mm cameras remain popular. In fact, I wonder why medium format manufacturers haven't thought of the mirrorless format. Getting rid of the big, bouncy mirror will help make medium format more compact, more usable and it even saves manufacturing costs. If I were Sony, I would definitely think hard about the medium format market, because it has the capacity to make cheaper medium format CMOS sensors that can beat the Kodak and Dalsa CCD sensors both technologically and in manufacturing cost. With Carl Zeiss as partner, Sony can roll out a medium format mirrorless camera that is both cheaper and technologically superior to what Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya and others are making, at a fraction of the cost. The demise of medium format photography is greatly exaggerated.

@Anastigmat I am sure it is difficult to provide a good EVF in medium format cameras with such a large sensor. The best EVFs are still not better than the best 35mm or APS-C OVFs. A larger sensor makes it more difficult with the amount of heat it will generate for providing smooth continuous output.

The problem with making mirrorless medium format cameras resides in the lenses. Look at what distance you need to take the lens away from the sensor to get a good coverage. Now,if they start with mirrorless, they need to make complete parks of new lenses and all old ones become obsolete. The same counts for mirrorless FF cameras. There is no lens that will work that close to the sensor, unless one takes apsc dx lenses for a FF mirrorless. The small size of Leica and Voiglaender lenses shows us how much smaller the lenses become in such a case. A Leica M lens was always closer to the film plan as any slr lens and thus smaller in size, what made it's advantage. Mirrorless cameras are the ideal tools for alround shooting, in the crowd and on travel. With heavy tele-lenses they become a clue and often impossible to handle. The Sony 18-200 is a huge heavy thing and if you make it smaller, like Tamron did, the quality of the shot is gone.

Medium sized camras could be popular too, if they where sold at reasonable prices, and for that you need high production rates, and on the other side if they had reasonable picture and file sizes, what is impossible to realize. One can not have it all, but a NEX in FF is possible to realize, since Leica made it too. A FF NEX would be a Leica at a correct affordable price, not at fantasy prices like Leica asks for their, supposed to be, better stuff.

I just hope the lenses are better than the rubbish fitted on the front of recent Kodak digital cameras, to which they put their name. Given their reputation for wonderful large format lenses, I was amazed they were prepared to risk their reputation on these awful plastic blobs.

Let's not forget also that Leica and Zeiss make lenses for point and shoot cameras. Does this minimize the quality and excellence of their products? This is called diversification and this kind of energy is keeping the Germans ahead of the other European nations in international commerce.

Sorry, you miss read. 'Leica and Zeiss make lenses for point and shoot cameras." And indeed they do. Those lenses are found in p&s cameras like Sony and Panasonic. I had a P&S Sony CyberShot DSC-W-30 which has a Zeiss lens. Man, great quality of image, meaning razor shap clear/neat whith great colour calibration. I got a new camera which is 3x the price, with a well known brand name and, yet, its images are less than half in sharpness. Somewhere else Ii had said: the heart of the camera, dear friends, is the lens.

Sorry, you don't understand. Leica and Zeiss DON'T make point and shoot lenses. Panasonic and Sony make them and buy Leica/Zeiss brand name for marketing reasons. But still, lens has to apply to some standards of those brands.

Zeiss takes part in design and setting the Q&A standards for lenses manufacture. Leica though in did - only sales it's brand name. I don't know how exactly it is with Schneider though. I overheard somewhere that they work like Leica do, but can't confirm it to any extend.

you are right there. But a small bitty lens for such a small sensor is less difficult to realize than a large dslr lens, then, it are different amounts you will produce and sell too. In that small sensor P$S, the concentration of light on a small spot is easier to realize then covering a larger sensor area. If you look the distance that you can go away from the sensor in that bodies, you can imagine that, if you, multiply the size, you get a huge distance if it comes to FF frame size. Divide the size of the sensor by the diameter of the large lenses on Zeiss P$S cameras. Now multiply the apsc or FF sensor by the same factor and you will end with a 30 cm pot on you dslr. Who will carry that. The trick is to make lenses with high efficiency and small sizes. The more light you want trough, the bigger the thing. Look how many wonders Leica does in P&S cameras, look pictures of Pana TS3 waterproof camera, that is master quality in lens, and you see that on the shots that result out of it.

Maybe Schneider is a little late. The Zuiko 12mm F2.0 and the SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm f/1.6 are already on the market and they are not bad at all. 14mm is not so big a difference to 12mm and I don't expect the Schneider lens to be cheap.

Of course it is bigger and (likely to be) much more expensive than the Panasonic 14mm f2.5. I think Schneider have an eye on the users of the AG-AF100 series and possibly also the Sony VG10 video cameras.If the lens can achieve high performance at full aperture without significant vignetting and distortion correction, then it will have advantages over the current m43 wide angle primes that some people may be willing to pay for.m43 owners will have to accept that third party makers will often be making lenses to cover the APS-C image circle. This doesn't make them bad lenses, it will just mean they are likely to be bigger than the native m43 designs. I think it's nice to have the growing choice of prime lenses.

I still use the old FT 1.4/25 Panaleica a lot, as no other MFT lens comes quite close to its performance (that includes the MFT 1.4 25 from Panasonic). The old Schneider field camera lenses are still in use, as their performance is very good. Hence I hope this new line of lenses will provide us with the same level of quality. I'll definitely buy one

Good News !! . I have been waiting to see this for a long time.I am happy that Schneider- Kreuznach decided to deliver their lens optical quality to the small format cameras. Also I expected to support Samsung NX series.

You are aware that there's a city in Germany named Bad Kreuznach and there happens to be a optical company headquartered there? It's very common for press releases (and news articles) to state the name of the location where the news eminates.

Back in the days when I only used film, I loved working with my medium format Rolleiflex which had a Schneider lens. The picture quality was at least as excellent as that of a friend's Hasselblad with a similar Zeiss lens. And in fact, optically as least as excellent as pictures taken with Leicas - which did look different because of the influence of the film format, but optical quality wise (sharpness / tonality / bokeh quality) at least in the same league.

A friend of mine used the little known Exacta 66 camera with Schneider lenses, his pictures were stellar as well.

I don't have a 14mm prime lens... Will I buy this Schneider Kreuznach 14mm f2.0 ? Unfortunately no, because it will cost four times more than the Panasonic 14 mm f2.5 .Will I buy the Panasonic 14mm ? No, because I read on Lenstip.com that it has "monstrous distortion, huge vignetting.... (and) ...the image quality on the edge of the frame could have been better"Too bad nobody is making a 14mm/ f2.8 of decent quality at an affordable price.

You might want to rethink the Panasonic 14mm, and perhaps read a few more reviews.I have the Pany 14mm and it does NOT suffer from the problems you stated.Given the price of the Pany 14mm, I think it is a great lens.

@Valentinian - Lenstip uses a non standard RAW convertor so the images are not auto corrected for distortion and vignetting. If you use a standard RAW convertor or shoot JPEG you won't find any meaningful distortion.

I was out in the rain last night taking photos. I go out at least 3 times a week taking photos. I'd guestimate that most DP regulars have never taken their camera out of their bedroom. why take photos when you can sit in front of the computer and talk about doing it!

With respect, you may be spending too much time reading, and not enough time taking pictures. The Panny 14mm is a little cracker, and is on my E-P3 most of the time. CA is well acceptable, vignetting totally disappears just one stop off full aperture, and IQ is superb. Go for it, and at the price you can pick them up for on Ebay, around GBP £120 is a no brainer. Enjoy.

I tend to agree with Valentinian. Olympus and Panasonic micro 4/3 lenses are very prone to distortion and chromatic aberration. While the former is corrected in-camera, CA is corrected only in Panasonic bodies. Using the DxO Optics Pro reveals the distortion produced by these lenses: it's huge, but as it is corrected in-camera, we tend not to notice it and believe it's all OK. The truth is these lenses are not so great, and Oly and Panny rely heavily on in-camera correction in order to present acceptable results. The word 'cheat' pops to mind: making subpar lenses and disguising its shortcomings through in-camera software - that's what Olympus and Panasonic do. The native distortion on the Olympus 17mm Pancake lens is nearly up to fish-eye standards!Of course, making wide-angle lenses with no barrel distortion costs a lot of money - hence the S-K estimated high price. Whether you need it or you can settle with a mediocre lens and let software correct its aberrations is up to you.

All lens quality parameters are a trade-off. If distortion in MFT lenses can be automatically corrected in-camera (or in-raw), allowing other lens characteristics to be improved, then such a "cheat" is welcome!For lenses intended for film, such distortion would truly be unacceptable, but for MFT lenses it might actually be a blessing...

Rol Lei Nut, the trouble is no other characteristics are improved. Having a wide-angle lens for a low price is undoubtedly a benefit, and it is true that correction, either in-camera or in post-processing, gets rid of all aberrations and distortions. With pancake lenses the trade-offs you mention are even more notorious, as it is impossible to use the elements required for an accurate view. (Ever wondered why high-quality wide-angles are so cumbersome?) My words are'n meant to be dismissive: in fact I have the 17mm f2.8 Pancake from Olympus, and it's the lens I use more often. It's nimble, and it is reasonably fast and sharp. But then again I take full advantage of DxO Modules to override its shortcomings.One thing is certain: this Schneider-Kreuznach will eat all MFT Pancake lenses for breakfast...

I've used very many lenses and formats. Distortion was one of the reasons why I almost always hated zooms.With MFT I have several zooms which I don't want to throw out the window - that's already impressive!How do you know that "no other characteristics are improved"?I mainly shot Leica and Zeiss lenses with film until recently (still do for B&W) and find that most of my MFT lenses deliver very good results... That is a compliment indeed!

I don't understand what you mean by "accurate view", but distortion is corrected in the viewfinder of MFT cameras.

BTW: from all I've heard, the Olympus 17mm is one of the worst MFT lenses

Finally, S-K normally makes very good lenses, but is far from perfect. Zeiss tends to be more constant (fewer peaks, but also fewer valleys. I'd love to see a S-K lens in a focal length I'd really like...

I probably misread the part about other characteristics to be improved - hence my reply -, but now that I read it again I'm completely puzzled. «If distortion in MFT lenses can be automatically corrected in-camera (or in-raw), allowing other lens characteristics to be improved...» To be improved how? In post-processing? In the camera?I can't help noticing you're commenting about the 17mm without having actually used it, but you're probably right... even though I don't find it any worse than the awful original 14-42 zoom. The one that rattles. I tried it one day and returned it the next. Both of them are flawed lenses in terms of distortion and chromatic aberration. Things start to improve with the 40-150 zoom, but the basic lenses aren't really that good. The Pancake, however, is very useful for street photography. I'm spoiled. I shoot a lot with OM lenses, and the only thing I lament is that their focal lengths aren't as versatile as the 34mm (equivalent) of the Pancake.

As I mentioned, lens design is a compromise between different characteristics.If for a given number of lens elements (which means price, size, weight) a designer doesn't have to correct distortion, then he/she is free to optimise those elements for other aberrations (sharpness, astigmatism, etc.)

Certainly you can find a 35mm lens for your OM?(35mm is my standard lens for my film cameras, which is why I hope a good and small MFT 17mm comes out soon...)

I don't have an OM camera. I have OM lenses, which I use on my E-P1 through an adapter. There's no equivalent to 35mm in the OM range. There's a 18mm, which would effectively work as a 36mm on a Micro 4/3 body, but it's f3.5. I have the Pancake for that. And it's a little faster.I read somewhere that Olympus has recently patented a 17mm/f2.8 lens. Maybe it will address the original's issues - if it comes out at all, because the fact that there is the patent doesn't necessarily mean it will go into production.

That could be important .. I am only an occasional video shooter, but when I use the cheapo standard size Lumix 14-42 for video it's impossible to rack the focus without jiggling the camera a little. The zoom is even clunkier. You definitely get what you pay for.

I think if you are buying a m4/3 as a backup for a DSLR it is crazy, but if you are going all out and moving entirely to m4/3 it makes sense. The IQ is good enough now on m4/3, so having quality lenses to maximise it's IQ is desirable. I agree that the lens prices are way too high and we are not seeing the benefit of the smaller system in price, just convenience.

Although I've now got an E-M% to compliment my DSLR's, I will have a smattering of quality lenses since once you've been spoiled by the excellent lenses for FF, you find it hard to use anything but quality lenses period. I'll be mostly using older manual focus lenses to save money but will buy a few of the newer AF m4/3 lenses, most likely the 35-100 f/2.8 and a macro.

@thx1138 Many of the older manual lenses perform great on m43. Images from my Nikon 50 1.8 AIS are right up there with the best performing m43 lenses I've ever used, and because it's a fairly long and fast lens, bokeh is really nice. For video, such lenses produce much nicer looking images, great for shallow DOF.

Actually, I think it was olympus, when first introducing the 4/3 system stated that smaller, lighter and cheaper were the goal.We really didn't get smaller and lighter until micro43 appeared, and we have never seen (nor are we ever likely to see) cheaper.

It's still has a good value, lenses have great IQ. Even kit zoom has good sharpness/contrast. I got my G3 and kit 14-42 for about 450$ I consider this far better investment than low end dslr's. And i like fast and reliable contrast af of m4/3 a lot better for anything expect super fast action.

The 'cheap' debate is silly. you can buy a new EPM1 for less than $500. You can buy an EPL1 th lens for $200. The most expensive micro 4/3 cameras are about as expensive as the mid-range DSLRs that they compete with. Comparing an OM-D to a digital Rebel or D3100 makes no sense.

Having looked at and shot the Schneider K shift lenses for Nikon, compared to Nikon's own, I suspect that the price for m4/3 will be breathtakingly higher than any other lens for the format. And that while the quality will be excellent, if the pattern holds from the Nikon and Canon world, not better enough to justify the price difference.

They licensed their name though it was said the lenses so marked had to meet Schneider's standards. Samsung's kit lens for their rebadged Pentax DSLRs was marked as a Schneider-Kreuznach though it was otherwise identical to Pentax's kit lens.

this (14mm) on m4/3 is actually pretty close (closer than anything else) to a classic 35mm view, assuming you crop the frame to the classic 35mm frame.

it looks a little bit large, but f/2 should be a sweet spot, and this could potentially be a major factor for me to consider m4/3. (the pany 14/2.5 is a bit underwhelming, though i know people who do stellar work with it.)

As I mentioned above the Voightlander 17.5 0.95 has been released and from the images and videos I've seen it's every bit as good as the 25 0.95. As soon as I hit the lotto or get a raise, I'll be buying it. :-)

My own wish list:A 17.5 mm 2.0 is fine, *if* it's excellent at full aperture!A 9 or 10mm. Doesn't need to be fast (even 4.0 is o.k.), but sharp in the corners at full aperture and small...A 200 or 250mm 4.0 which fits in a pocket (Enna once made a decent pocketable 240 4.5 for 35mm) and, guess what, is excellent at full aperture.

Schneider was a big name in photography lenses for many decades (though they did sell the large format lens division to Linos) - so I have high expectations on their lenses. I am really curios about the price. I would not be surprised if they would target the 'upper end' of the m4/3 market.

The article referenced in the blurb says the price will be around 1500 Euros, whatever that will be worth in other currencies by the time it is available for purchase by consumers is open to speculation.

That's pretty excellent news. I only ever used their large format Digitars, along with some older enlarger glass, - but if they manage to deliver a comparable quality in DX format I know I will be buying a few.

somewhere they have to start... they started from lenses, now just wait for the rest to come... Anyway AG-AF100 is one, and hacked GH2 creates impressive footage. Professional just means that you make money from that, I made money with GoPro...

The definition of a professional camera: A camera that makes images that sell.... does that mean we can send our camera on assignment and stay in the comfort of our home ? ... Nope ... thus it is the combination of camera and photographer. If that combination sells we got the definition. Regardless if it is a Holga or a Sinar + person. Over my 40 years of making a living only with cameras I have lugged probably more kilos of equipment around as most of us. Started my career against all odds with Leica M3 in the early '70s. Made most of my money with Sinar and Rolleiflex 6006 and Nikon F3 , ditched all my big gear (Nikon D2x was nearly replaced by the Nikon D4 recently...) over the years, just bought a Olympus OM-D to which I mount a variety of lenses, the oldest my 1954 Leitz 50mm 1.5 , and a Olympus 300mm auto T 4.5 and some new glass, without reservation I dare to state : this is a professional camera! It is the combination of camera + person that sets the definition, nothing else.

PART 2: The results I make will sella as good as my other images. And believe me I sold, just look at my property at paradiseforsale.com.au or my photo site bataviaphotos.com for evidence. If you feel comfortable with a camera, if it makes you happy, than go for it. For example : I hated Hasselblad , could not work with it , loved Rolleiflex , same for Canon , recently won a Canon 5d MarkII in a photocompetion , could not sell it quick enough. Does that make those hated cameras bad or even unprofessional ? NO !! They are very good cameras , the combination me + Hasselblad / Canon was wrong. A professional camera is a camera that is a tool that makes you money. Undeniable , the camera should perform and last. Which makes an interesting point: A Nikon D4 is rated for some 300000 shots , the Olympus OM-D for 100000 ... at 1/4 of the price and less than half size and weight. So I carry two or three soon. Happy as a pig in the mud with my little pro. Cheers to you all ... happy shooting !!

Ive read about People are using iPhones along side 135 dslr's at weddings, or even ken Rockwell who carries an iPod touch with his Nikon kit... Just saying the obvious. It's about the photographer and there understanding of the gear... Even though we love perfect stats on paper.